Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?
God and Science ^ | Sept 2002 | Richard Deem

Posted on 09/11/2002 7:33:21 PM PDT by Ahban

Can Intelligent Design (ID) be a Testable, Scientific Theory?

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

In essence, ID is a statistical study in which the product is unlikely to occur by naturalistic process alone. For many things, especially in the arena of biology, it is difficult or impossible at this time to generate any kind of statistical model to even do the test. However, this will not always be the case. The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. There is a certain statistical probability for mutations, which is absolutely known. There are also known genetic sequences that differ from one another. Evolution claims that all life is descended from previous life, and the fossil record gives us the approximate time at which species appeared. Statistical calculations can be made on the basis of divergence. Complete genomic sequences are just beginning to be completed. There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties, so the level of ID will have to be pretty good to be accepted by the general scientific community.

Is Intelligent Design (ID) a valid scientific theory?

ID theory has been criticized on the following basis:

  1. No model has been presented
  2. Since there is no model, there are no predictions from the theory
  3. No refinement of the theory is possible

In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to

  1. define the Intelligent Designer
  2. reject young-earth creationism

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited.

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

  1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
  2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
  3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
  4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.

Characteristics of a successful ID model

A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

  1. The intelligent Designer is identified
  2. The model is detailed
  3. The model can be refined
  4. The model is testable and falsifiable
  5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction, since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be less than that for mtDNA (see Evolutionary Descent of Man Theory- Disproved by Molecular Biology).

Characteristics of Christian supernaturalism

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

Characteristic Anti-Supernatural Supernatural
Cosmology eternal multiverse single transcendent beginning
Time infinite space time foam finite duration
Laws of physics breakdown at 10-43 sec. fixed
Fine tuning explained by infinite # universes extreme fine tuning is designed
Probability only likely events will occur creation involved miracles that could not occur by chance

The table above gives some of the characteristics of Christian supernaturalism compared to naturalism. Contrary to atheistic assertions, the Christian ID model does not claim that the universe is perfect. The idea that a perfect God would not create a universe less than "perfect" is logically flawed. The biblical model states that the universe is flawed - for the purpose of allowing humans the choice to love or reject God. The model also states that this imperfect universe will be replaced by a perfect universe once its purpose has been fulfilled. Those humans who chose to love God will be perfected by their own permission into sinless, loving creatures. Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place? Forcing creatures to be prefect would abrogate their free will and prevent them expressing true love, since they would have no choice. Humans who want to spend eternity with God chose now to give up their ability to sin or be unloving in the future new universe, where no such choices will exist.

Predictions of the Christian ID model compared to naturalism

Because of the nature of the laws of physics, it seems likely that none of the characteristics in the above table can be absolutely known. However, there are a number of predictions that each theory makes, which can be tested by further study of the universe and life on the earth.

What are some specific predictions made by the two models?

Predictions of Naturalism vs. Christian ID

  Characteristic Anti-Supernatural Christian ID
1. Single transcendent beginning will be refuted evidence will increase
2. Fine tuning "design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge more examples of extreme fine tuning will be found, indicating true design
3. Uniqueness of earth many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent
4. Existence of life in the universe life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and advanced life will be found only on earth
5. Prebiotic chemistry a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found the universe was designed to support living systems, but their creation required ID by God
6. Origin of Life Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria) Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex
7. New designs in nature Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight"
8. Mass extinction events Slow recovery No restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created

What is the scorecard so far? Science tells us that:

  1. There is no evidence for more than one universe or one creation event.
  2. Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10120.
  3. No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.
  4. No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.
  5. It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system.
  6. Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.
  7. Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.
  8. Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.


Home | Answers | Design | Creation | Bible | Slideshows | Theology | Cults | Tribulation | Life Issues | Discovery | God's Love | Abortion | Discussion | Links | About us | Contact | Newsletter | e-Card | Webmaster | Personal | Humor | Search


GodAandScience.org
Answers for Atheists
  Design vs. Evolution
  Biblical Creation
  Bible Authenticity
  Slideshows
  Christian Theology
  Cults of Christianity
  Christian Tribulation
  Christian Life Issues
  Discovery Course
  God's Love
  Abortion
  Discussion Forum
  Links
 
About us
Contact us
Newsletter
 
Send an e-Card
Webmaster Resources
Personal Pages
Humor
 

Advanced Search
  Site Map
   
    Email Page


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,102 next last
This is not just a test of ID, but of a specific model of ID, old earth bibical creationism. I suppose the more specific the model, the easier it would be to test. While "ID" as a fuzzy concept may be too vauge to test, not so bibical creationism.
1 posted on 09/11/2002 7:33:22 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ahban
It isn't vagueness that counts, per se, it is refutability. If you can't test for something in a manner likely to refute it, if it's wrong, it isn't generally considered a scientific thesis, as per Carl Popper, which is good enough for me.

Strict creationism qualifies, I guess, and is refuted in innumerable ways. ID is, at best, a coin flip to my mind, as is SETI.

2 posted on 09/11/2002 7:42:43 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
"Why didn't God create this perfect universe in the first place?"

Maybe because He knew there would be people who wouldn't post religion articles in the Religion Forum, and they would be out of place in a perfect universe?
3 posted on 09/11/2002 7:49:38 PM PDT by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donh
You sure are a fast reader. In less than nine minutes you found my post, read the long technical article, and composed your reply. That's real good don.

Or maybe you just saw the words "testable creation model" and gave a knee-jerk response with a fluffy quote right out of the Naturalists Handbook.

Tell the truth, did you even read this article before posting your 'reply'?

4 posted on 09/11/2002 7:51:49 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: APBaer
An article which discusses a test of 'bibical creationism' belongs in the religion section too, IMHO.

If you meant that first question seriously, I could give you my long winded theological answer- tomorrow.
5 posted on 09/11/2002 7:54:47 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
The answer is "No. A mathematical formula cannot be a 'testable, scientific theory.'"
6 posted on 09/11/2002 8:59:36 PM PDT by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
later read
7 posted on 09/11/2002 10:15:00 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
...a specific model of ID...

It is still 'fuzzy.'

The author denigrates evolution/science because "Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described."

Yet he makes no attempts to describe the analogous physical agency of creation by Intelligent Design. This physical agency is likeliest to be revealed deep in the genetic makeup of living creatures. Given the increasing sophistication of genetic research that is an excellent area for research and theory about ID. In the meantime, it isn't fair to criticize evolution/science for not having a precise answer.

8 posted on 09/11/2002 11:41:27 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
You sure are a fast reader. In less than nine minutes you found my post, read the long technical article, and composed your reply. That's real good don.

Don't get too mesmerized by your own creative acts. I read about 1/3 of this text--I scan for new arguments. If I detect an old argument, I don't feel obligated to chew up every bit of it.

Or maybe you just saw the words "testable creation model" and gave a knee-jerk response with a fluffy quote right out of the Naturalists Handbook.

Kindly indicate which part of my rather informally worded post strikes you as a "quote right out of the Naturalists Handbook".

Tell the truth, did you even read this article before posting your 'reply'?

Tell the truth--it makes you feel awfully special when you make a thread, doesn't it?

Let's just run a test here. Is my response relevant to the subject matter of the thread-----um, yes, by some incredible accident, so it seems. Does my post reference specific points in the article in context-----um, yes, by some incredible accident, the SETI response questions your assertion that it's a science.

Having completed the test, I now believe I have found the bug in the system. It seems to be your lack of mannerly restraint. If you have a response to the meat of my post, I will return, otherwise, I will take this as an implied request to withdraw from your thread which I will be more than happy to honor.

9 posted on 09/12/2002 12:28:25 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; Physicist; RadioAstronomer; PatrickHenry; Doctor Stochastic; Nebullis; ...
Ping
10 posted on 09/12/2002 7:18:32 AM PDT by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 19].

11 posted on 09/12/2002 7:30:30 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: scripter
placemaker
12 posted on 09/12/2002 7:33:51 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Thanks for the heads up!
13 posted on 09/12/2002 7:38:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
bump for later
14 posted on 09/12/2002 7:50:20 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you sir for the heads up, watch for the blue man.

ID and Creationism are neither provable nor scientific, but it sure is fun when they claim to be.
15 posted on 09/12/2002 7:53:12 AM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
A "fresh meat" bump...
16 posted on 09/12/2002 8:05:26 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Interesting assertion in the "Probability" column of the Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism box. It states that the Anti-Supernaturalists believe "only likely events will occur." That's simply wrong.
17 posted on 09/12/2002 8:42:02 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.

No mention of observational bias. What's easier to detect from twenty thousand light years distance? The gravitational wobble induced by a Jupiter or the gravitational wobble induced by an Earth?

We've seen what we can see. I hate it when I catch you guys just saying what helps you.

18 posted on 09/12/2002 9:12:55 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Ahban
It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system.

For "it is impossible" substitute, "no one has yet demonstrated how." This guy is a charlatan.

20 posted on 09/12/2002 9:14:29 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Neither the biochemical nor replicative pathways have been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.

A strange mushy statement accompanied by a circular proof. The first part needs the addition of "completely, definitively, and for all time" to be correct. The second part implies that the mere existence of the Discovery Institute comedy troupe proves that the Discovery Institute comedy troupe is right.

21 posted on 09/12/2002 9:19:16 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.

Not telling us everything, is he?

Punctuated Equilibrium has been around for thirty years. Why is Richard Deem feigning ignorance of a major paradigm in evolutionary theory that nicely explains what he claims is unexplained?

22 posted on 09/12/2002 9:24:04 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.

My comments on the preceding apply. I didn't think Deem was doing all that badly on the theoretical implications, although it's incorrect to say that mainstream science has now and forever married multiple universes.

The guy's shuckin' and jivin' on the scorecard stuff, though.

23 posted on 09/12/2002 9:27:39 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the ping. I read these threads, but not in detail, scanning for possible alignment with scientific definitions such as systematic error, random error, analytical procedure and so forth. I usually don't comment, but this article seems to be based on a possibly workable hypothesis, a twist that may bear fruit.

I wonder how the creation stories would have differed if our ancestors had known that solar system rocks were going to test out as 4.5 billion years old. Possibly the stories would not be any different, since most of them are not about the creation of the physical universe at all, but of the spiritual world.

24 posted on 09/12/2002 9:34:01 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for any living system.

Powered flight is impossible. Quite true ... but only before December 17, 1903.


25 posted on 09/12/2002 9:59:51 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
...since most of them [Biblical Scriptures] are not about the creation of the physical universe at all, but of the spiritual world.

Great catch, RightWhale! The spiritual aspect is often overlooked. Genesis et al speak to the total creation - not just the natural realm.

As an example, both sides (young earth creationism and evolutionism) want to place Eden only on earth, when the Scriptures indicate that it is in (or is) Paradise. (Gen 2 and Rev 2 - tree of life in the center of Eden and Paradise respectively.) And there's even more support for this view in other ancient writings, i.e. the Pseudepigrapha!

One view is that items in the natural realm are likenesses of items in the spiritual realm. The Temple and the Ark of the Covenant are obvious examples.

26 posted on 09/12/2002 10:22:14 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Powered flight is impossible. Quite true ... but only before December 17, 1903.

A few other impossible things:

1. Understanding the nature of lightning.
2. Determining the distance to the stars.
3. Speaking over long distances.
4. Understanding why the sun shines.
5. Predicting storms.
6. Splitting the atom.
7. Flying to the moon.
8. Understanding the origin of life (oops, still being worked on.)

27 posted on 09/12/2002 10:27:21 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: donh
I'm very glad to see your mentioning Carl Popper! We had a great discussion going on falsification on another thread.

On that thread, each candidate raised as subject to falsification was claimed to have already been falsified and then that claim was refutted.

Many Creationist books have printed this quote:

"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable theories." Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography 1976, La Salle, IN: Open Court Press

If you read the book, Popper is actually raising the famous "natural selection is a tautology" objection. Popper recanted two years later:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ... The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological." Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978. See 344-346 for this quote.

Quotes - Popper

So that puts the question back to what the candidates might be for falsification of evolution: abiogenesis, gradual changes, length of time, etc.

Any suggestions?

28 posted on 09/12/2002 10:34:13 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Powered flight is impossible. Quite true ... but only before December 17, 1903.

Please update your references...

1857

Jean-Marie Le Bris, a French sea caption, tests a glider modeled after an albatross. This "artificial bird" makes one short glide, but on the second glide it crashes and Le Bris breaks his leg.

Felix Du Temple and his brother Louis, France, fly a model monoplane whose propellers are driven by a small steam engine. It takes of under its own power, flies a short distance, and glides to a safe landing. It is the first successful flight of a powered aircraft of any sort.

29 posted on 09/12/2002 12:52:31 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; All
Western Science began as an effort to discern, understand and quantify God's design. I would further say that we have learned much from this effort.

629 posted on 8/29/02 9:05 PM Pacific by Phaedrus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western (social)Science began as an effort to discern, understand and quantify God's design(laws/Truth). I would further say that we(some haven't) have learned much(anything) from this effort.

629 posted on 8/29/02 9:05 PM Pacific by Phaedrus(my additions)

My comments...

Liberalism/evolution is...

'hyper'---arrested 'development(cancer)'...

suspended reality/truthcide(murder) too!

30 posted on 09/12/2002 2:50:23 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: donh
I apologize for the lack of 'mannerly restraint' in my reply. That came out with a harder edge than I meant it to. I want to limit the discussion to the facts, and leave personal animosity (not that I have any towards you) out of it.

I guess what annoyed me most was the loose rephrasing of the whole 'its not testable' thing. As in 'If you can't test for something in a manner likely to refute it, if it's wrong, it isn't generally considered a scientific thesis

The whole point of the article was to make some predictions that ARE testable. And they did, but the first third was background. As you said, you only read the first third and so never got to the meat of it.

Is is tough when any test you can give is dismissed out of hand. To me those tests are as reasonable as the ones for the evo side. They are no easier or harder to refute than the ones that postulate evolution alone is responsible for all biotic change.

31 posted on 09/12/2002 2:52:19 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ahban; All
Posted by f.Christian to medved
On News/Activism Sep 8 2:35 PM #107 of 176

To: Dimensio
As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

Main Entry: log·ic

Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND

Date: 12th century

1 a

(1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

(2) : a branch or variety of logic

(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS

(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY

c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason < the logic of war >

- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun


32 posted on 09/12/2002 2:54:45 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
Are you sure you have the right thread? There is a lot more predictive power than a simple mathematical formula involved in this. An evo only wishes that was all that was in this model. Instead, it is one component of a testable model for creationsim that makes prediction with the same degree of provability as evolutionary tests. Maybe moreso.
33 posted on 09/12/2002 2:55:33 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Ahban
For "it is impossible" substitute, "no one has yet demonstrated how." This guy is a charlatan.

If I burn hydrogen gas in air, I can make water.

(I haven't read the article yet so I can't be serious.)

34 posted on 09/12/2002 3:02:23 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
The agency IS described. The God of the Bible is the causal agent. I agree with your point about traces of His handiwork being evident in the genetic code. But if that point has not been made here it has been made in other research by Dr. Hugh Ross.

Of course that deals only with origination of the code. If the Creationists are right it is possible that NO viable pathway exists between orders or families or organisms. Thus it is not fair of you to say 'Well, don't ask us to show you our pathway until you show us yours'.

Our whole point is that the causal agent is OUTSIDE our three-dimensions plus time universe. YOU are the ones who say it is inside, thus finding those pathways strengthens your case, being unable to find them despite a wealth of knowledge strengthens ours.

Besides that kmock, plenty of testable predictions ARE made. If you want to diss this as a legit hypothesis instead of focusing on points not made that should have been, you have to show why all of those that ARE made don't count.
35 posted on 09/12/2002 3:05:27 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I have an article at the top of this post that says your wrong- Creationism IS testable and thus IS scientific. If you can refute the specifics of the article go ahead. I say you can't, but you are just repeating the mantra of 'its not science' despite the evidence right in front of you that science can be applied to this issue.

When you decide to do something besides parrot the party line without any supporting facts I invite you to come back and contribute to the thread.
36 posted on 09/12/2002 3:09:51 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
If I burn hydrogen gas in air, I can make water.

I can "make water" without hydrogen! ;)

37 posted on 09/12/2002 3:12:37 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
"Only likely events will occur" is not strictly correct, so you have a point there. Would it help any if it was rephrased as "The laws of probability will be obeyed"?

That is, unlikely events CAN occur, they just are not likely to. If enough 'unlikely ' events occur, there is a good chance you are missing some causal agent.
38 posted on 09/12/2002 3:13:20 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Vade, when it comes to paleontology, I must defer to your superior knowledge. On astronomy I think I know a few things.

Deem could have phrased this better, but the gist of what he is saying still holds. It is true we cannot detect Earth sized planets yet, but the giant planets we do find tend to be very close to the star. Almost every astrophysicst beleives they formed further out and drifted in. This would have disrupted the orbit of any earth-like planet.

In other words, what we are finding discounts the idea that earth-like planets are common. The 'norm' for a solar system, is for a big boy to spiral in and wreck havoc.

When you add up all of the odds, as big as the universe is, the odds are GREATLY against even ONE earth existing. I will post a link on that later.
39 posted on 09/12/2002 3:19:18 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Church of Darwin/dogma!

Main Entry: dog·ma

Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/

Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT

Date: 1638

1

a : something held as an established opinion; especially :

a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets

c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church/*Cult

*my addition!

40 posted on 09/12/2002 3:19:31 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
7. (New designs in nature)

Anti-Supernatural: Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common

Supernatural: No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight"

Indeed! The Designer could make mammal-bird, amphibian-mammal, or amphibian-bird composites just as easily as He made Archeopteryx with its wonderful mix of bird and reptile features. But He only seems to make composites that look just like transitionals on that evolutionary tree of life. This item boldly states that such is far from necessary. Creation/ID can freely predict a far wider range of designs than does evolution.

So where are they?

41 posted on 09/12/2002 3:23:09 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
is true we cannot detect Earth sized planets yet, but the giant planets we do find tend to be very close to the star.

That's another bias. Being closer makes the wobble bigger. The inverse r2 factor in Newton's Law and all that.

Almost every astrophysicst beleives they formed further out and drifted in. This would have disrupted the orbit of any earth-like planet.

But it's harder to see the cases where that didn't happen.

42 posted on 09/12/2002 3:25:59 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; PatrickHenry
On #25 and other you are basically saying "It is impossible NOW, but we will do it".

That is a statement of faith on your part. That is a confirmation of my own hypothesis that naturalism is a faith, just like bibical Christianity (with the exception that it is not true, but both are ultimately matters of faith and not evidence).
43 posted on 09/12/2002 3:26:16 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
For "it is impossible" substitute, "no one has yet demonstrated how." This guy is a charlatan.

That is a statement of faith on your part. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith which side we choose. You are SURE it can be done, but we just have not figured out how YET. Pure faith, by the facts, it is currently impossible, but by faith it is just a matter of time. Maybe, maybe not.

In the meantime, the fellow has made some testable predictions. Prove them wrong and you have negated his hypothesis. Isn't that fair enough?

44 posted on 09/12/2002 3:31:36 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
It is an assumption--a philosophical assumption--that life can be produced by random motion. Nothing can refute this notion, not even the multiplication of instances to infinity.
45 posted on 09/12/2002 3:34:15 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
That is a statement of faith on your part.

This gets a little silly, you know. We're talking about the chemical synthesis of organics.

Can we add another prediction to a very short list?

1) OK, well, there's never going to be another transitional fossil found,
2) OK, well, there's never going to be another organic compound synthesized.

46 posted on 09/12/2002 3:35:05 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
Testable according to whom, it is NOT testable unless you can prove that there is a god. When you can PROVE that, then it will be testable, but until then it is faith and NOT at all scientific.

If the main tenet of your theory is that there is a creator, then you HAVE to prove that a creator exists.

Let's see you prove it.
47 posted on 09/12/2002 3:37:38 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
He should have footnoted the PE stuff, I'll grant you. The annoying thing about PE to a creavo is that IT comes off as the shucking and jiving you accuse Deem of. It is 'How the fossle record can look just like Creationism and still be the result of Naturalistic Evolution". I would be interested to know how PE fossils would look any different from Creationism.

PE is an attempt to explain why the fossil record is 9X% contradictory to classical Darwinism. My biggest knock against it is that if such rapid change occured as frequently as postulated by the idea, we should be observing new FAMILIES in just a few centuries.

If PE is is the explanation, why isn't it happening now? Why is macroevolution always happening somewhere else? Creationsim has an explanation, naturalism does not, at least not a good one.
48 posted on 09/12/2002 3:38:14 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
If PE is is the explanation, why isn't it happening now?

Have we been all over that? Ring species? Aren't you one of those micro-isn't-macro-dodgers?

Just did it all over today with Dark Knight, who (throwback that he is) doesn't even accept microevolution. First this, then later the following.

Let me summarize the evidence a bit. We can see this micro thing, even if we can't always do the ultimate test.

From Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

We can see this macro thing, which looks a lot like the micro thing writ large.

From Appendicular Skeletal Evolution, part of The Evolution of the Horse.

It isn't always happening somewhere else. It happens slowly but detectably now. As that slide show pointed out:

Now, you can protest that your version predicts anything we find now or will ever find with its "Hey! He could have done that too!" Designer. The problem is convincing anyone that your version is more scientific.

49 posted on 09/12/2002 3:59:36 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
On #25 and other you are basically saying "It is impossible NOW, but we will do it". That is a statement of faith on your part. That is a confirmation of my own hypothesis that naturalism is a faith, just like bibical Christianity (with the exception that it is not true, but both are ultimately matters of faith and not evidence).

I believe you are mis-using the word "faith" in this context. As I use the word faith, it means belief in something without evidence or logical proof. Many theological doctrines are believed on faith, as I've described it.

However, I gave a list of scientific accomplishments which were, in the pre-scientific past, believed to be impossible. But science has provided us with the understanding of nature to accomplish things which, in our ignorant past, we were unable to do. So science has a track record. This is evidence of the efficacy of the scientific endevour.

Thus, when I say that some things now claimed to be impossible (the claims are made by creationists, not scientiests) may in the future be accomplished, I am pointing to the scientific track record and, with confidence (not faith), I predict that such matters can be solved by further research.

I admit that such predictions may be too enthusiastic, and some problems may turn out to be unsolvable. But it's confidence, based on observable facts, not faith, based on ... well, on nothing but faith.

50 posted on 09/12/2002 4:33:50 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,101-1,102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson